Breeze,

You ask why I don't post Kyle McSlarrow's testimony in total. Actually, if you look again, you'll note that on the day of the hearing, I posted a link to his statement on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee website. And the following day, we added Mr. McSlarrow's written remarks to AntiPolygraph.org:

http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-energy-2003/mcslarrow-statement.shtml

Deputy Secretary of Energy McSlarrow all but conceded that polygraph screening has no validity, choosing instead to base his arguments in favor of continued polygraph screening on claims of utility (i.e., admissions obtained.) But the unverifiable anecdotal evidence that Mr. McSlarrow adduced tells us absolutely nothing about the utility of polygraphy. Over the past 50-some-odd years, various instrumentalities of the U.S. Government have administered hundreds of thousands of polygraph screening examinations. It is hardly surprising that a few people would confess to all sorts of things. Indeed, there is zero statistical chance that one wouldn't get some admissions when polygraphing (or simply interviewing, without the polygraph) such large numbers of people.

The NAS report found that there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy (its ability to add predictive value to that which could be achieved by other means). Which raises the question, might the admissions Mr. McSlarrow referred to have been obtained by other means?

More importantly, how many innocent people wrongly suffer to "catch" these few transgressors who are stupid enough to make admissions during their polygraph examinations?